User talk:JeffSpaceman

Archives

June 2020 - December 2022 April 2023 - March 2024 March 2024 - January 2025 January 2025 - April 2025

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your help reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 19:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I hope this message finds you well. I'd like extend an invitation to you to join the upcoming Wikimedia LGBT+ online Community Meeting. We will be discussing, among other topics, the 2025 edition of the Wiki Loves Pride global campaign and how to collaborate better across languages on queer-related articles. You can register and find more information about it on: meta:WMLGBT Community Meeting April 2025.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BsT7AvS6i/?mibextid=wwXIfr FeistyCajunStacy (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That needs to be cited in the article, not on the talk page of an editor who challenges content. See WP:BURDEN. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Contributor to the Legacy of Saturn
	Thank you for the rollback on the Saturn Corporation Wikipedia page :) I do not know what the person who you rolled back was trying to do, nor am I experienced enough to discern as much. If you have insight, please tell me, it may be a change I would like to implement :) TheSaturnLover (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert edit of the article James E. Williams got accidentally reverted by me. I'm not exactly sure what happened but I reverted my revert so everything is back like you intended. I agree with your revert because the original edit was not sourced. Sorry, I probably fat fingered something... Cuprum17 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).

Administrator changes

Rusalkii

NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)

• Master Jay
• Orderinchaos
• Roger Davies
• Tinucherian

Interface administrator changes

Galobtter

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
• An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
• An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.

Miscellaneous

• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!

This isn't a warning or anything and I made the same mistake, but your reverts at National Public School, Banashankari were restoring vandalism and BLP violations. We all need to make sure that we're checking what we're restoring without just seeing a chunk of text being removed and assuming it was disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I'm sorry for any inconvenience I caused -- I try to take particular care when adding or restoring information about living people, but I think I must have been thrown off by the fact that the article itself is not a BLP. Once again, I appreciate your raising this matter here, and I will make a point to be more careful going forward. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Like I said, I made the same mistake, but we can't improve if we're not given the heads up when we made a mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you removed category of neo-Nazi politics in USA from Kanye West's views.

I think this doesn't make sense, because the rapper in question literally called himself a Nazi and recently made a song glorifying Hitler.

Why should the category go when Ye's views fall squarely in there? HarlambiDaabrev (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Talk:Kanye West#Why do we not add the “American neo-Nazis” category? and Talk:Views of Kanye West#Addition of contentious categories for explanations. Per WP:BLP, strong consensus is required for the inclusion of such categories, and the burden is on those seeking it to establish it. With content about living people being as sensitive on Wikipedia as it is, this requires exceptional sourcing, and there is a rough consensus at the Kanye West talk page that West's self-identification is insufficient to meet the criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF, and most reliable sources that can be found describe him as a "self-proclaimed Nazi" as opposed to one outright, which is where a lot of arguments for the inclusion of these types of categories ultimately fall apart. If you would like to discuss this further, feel free to start a discussion on the talk pages of Kanye West and/or Views of Kanye West (here and here, respectively), but I feel pretty set in my ways about this argument, which has come up time and again ever since he made his initial comments, and to be honest, I don't see that changing any time soon. Do start discussion at either page if you feel like doing so, though -- consensus could very well swing to your side sooner or later, regardless of what I have to say. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Administrator changes

• DDima
• Gimmetrow
• Huon
• Johan Elisson
• Spangineer
• The Land

Interface administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

CheckUser changes

L235

Oversight changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

JeffSpaceman, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! DANGA14talk

20:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

This one wasn't vandalizing. The article had been hijacked and replaced, so he was asking what was going on with it. Joyous! Noise! 20:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for correcting that. Sorry about any inconvenience my revert may have caused. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was no trouble for me, but you might go and strike out or remove your warning from their talk page. Joyous! Noise! 20:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from their talk page. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Taylor Hill (model).

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

162 etc. (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the discussions to create the required consensus rather than edit-warring. --Hipal (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring. I have only ever reverted on the article once -- you have had your WP:BOLD edit challenged by multiple editors, and have come close to violating WP:3RR in some instances. It is expected per WP:BRD that you will engage in discussion about a challenged edit rather than repeatedly restoring your preferred revision. To avoid further edit warring, I will not revert your edit, but I highly recommend you self-revert so that the article can remain in its stable, pre-edit warring revision while discussion is taking place. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

You participated in an edit war without addressing the policies, talk page discussion, or DRN.

If you'll look, that "stable" version had multiple content policy violations relevant to the dispute in question. BLP requires more. --Hipal (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about BLP requiring better than what was provided (which is another part of why I am voluntarily refraining from editing the article itself), but I will say that per WP:3RRBLP, what counts as exempt from the edit warring policy under BLP can be controversial. Unless it is genuinely, obviously problematic, I'd recommend inquiring on the BLP noticeboard instead of continuously reverting going forward. I didn't address those because I felt that you were continuing to edit war, rather than discussing an edit that has been challenged by multiple editors. I'm not going to act like those of us who have reverted you are all entirely in the right -- WP:STATUSQUO does point out that edit warring to maintain a status quo is still edit warring, yet another part of why I am backing out of reverting, and that has certainly been done over there. But I will say that despite the fundamental disagreement that has resulted in this dispute, I do hope that it can be sorted out in a way that meets Wikipedia policy. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, comments like "UPE might explain the lack of respect for policies" seems like you are casting aspersions upon those who revert your edits. Please focus on content, not contributors. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, my edit summary was a mistake, as it could be interpreted to mean that editors who are currently active in the dispute might be UPE's, though the UPE editing occurred at the time of the "stable" version or before, all likely last year. The lack of respect for content policy is pretty blatant, regardless. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you for clearing this all up. Once again, I am backing away from this content dispute, but I hope it can be settled sooner rather than later. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]